812.6363/1279: Telegram The Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) to the Secretary of State MEXICO, November 17, 1922-1 p.m. 122. Your telegram no. 169, November 11, 6 p.m. Pani replies that General Obregón is absolutely ignorant of the source of the draft, that neither he nor Pani had any knowledge of it until I submitted a copy to Pani and that the Executive has not yet submitted to Chamber of Deputies any project relative to the matter in reference. Pani adds, "Moreover, the President charges me to inform you that the dignity and the sovereignty of the Nation preclude absolutely that he accept that the laws which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal legislative power receive previous censorship by governments of other countries ". SUMMERLIN 812.6363/1281: Telegram The Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) to the Secretary of State MEXICO, November 18, 1922-noon. [Received 9:50 p.m.] 124. Pani's informal note, the substance of which was telegraphed in my November 17, 1 p.m., my informal memorandum embodying the Department's observations contained in its telegram 169 November 11, 6 p.m. and previous personal and informal correspondence (the last of no particular importance in the matter) was submitted by the Secretary of the Interior to the Chamber of Deputies last evening and published in full as a grave international incident in today's local press. The matter was the subject of apparently. inspired patriotic political speeches in Chamber of Deputies in support of General Obregón's stand regarding what is termed as an attempt by the United States to censor proposed Mexican legislation. ... SUMMERLIN 812.6363/1279: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) WASHINGTON, November 20, 1922-5 p.m. 171. Your 124 November 18, 12 noon. Inform Mr. Pani that you advised the Department of the proceedings in the Chamber of Deputies on the 17th instant and of his communication to you covered by your telegram 122 November 17, 1 P.M., and state that you are instructed to invite his attention to the following official statement of the Department given to the press on the 18th instant which explains the attitude of this Government in this matter. "The officers of the Department of State were much surprised to learn of the expressions in Mexico that the United States Government was seeking to interfere in Mexico's internal affairs. This Government has not the slightest desire to do so. As Secretary Hughes said in his recent speech at Boston,52 it is not for us to suggest what laws Mexico shall have relating to the future, for, of course, Mexico must be the judge of her own domestic policy. What we have said as to the proposed legislation was with the understanding that the Mexican authorities would welcome an expression of our views. The Mexican regime desires recognition by the United States. The confiscatory policy of Mexico has stood in the way. We have Isaid that when a nation has invited intercourse with other nations, has established laws under which investments have been lawfully made, contracts entered into and property rights acquired by citi zens of other jurisdictions, it is an essential condition of international intercourse that international obligations shall be met and that there shall be no resort to confiscation and repudiation. We have repeatedly said that we are not particular as to the form of the assurance against confiscation. We desire the fact. The Mexican authorities have said that they could not make a treaty to give this assurance against confiscation. They have said that the proper course was for the Mexican Congress to regulate the application of the Constitution of 1917 so as to preclude confiscation. We have said that we have not stood in the way of such legislation and should be glad to see it. Recently we were informed that a bill for this purpose had been drafted. But the provisions of this bill according to our advices were utterly inadequate to protect against confiscation of valid titles acquired under Mexican laws prior to the Constitution of 1917. Of course we did not desire to rest apparently satisfied with such procedure and permit the Mexican authorities to assume that recognition by this Government would follow the passage of such an inadequate measure. We were given to understand that the Department's comment on the proposed measure would not be unwelcome. We had not the slightest intention of interfering in Mexican affairs and have not done so. The Mexican Congress, of course, is entitled to pass its laws. But if they resort to legislation to interpret the Constitution of 1917 with the idea of precluding confiscation and obtaining recognition by this Government it is only fair that they should know the views of this Government as to the efficacy of the legislation for that purpose. Had this Government in no way intimated its view before the legislation had been passed, there doubtless would have been complaint. We desired to maintain friendly relations with the Mexican people and it is in the interest of that friendship that we have hoped they would find a way of giving protection against confiscation. Upon that fundamental question the position of this Government remains precisely what it has been." HUGHES 812.6363/1279: Circular telegram The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic Representatives 53 WASHINGTON, November 21, 1922-6 p.m. The following is for your information and such discreet use as you may deem wise in your relations with the government to which you are accredited. The Department has been advised that the Mexican authorities have informed all Central and South American Governments that the Department, in recent representations to the Mexican Foreign Office to the effect that certain proposed Mexican petroleum legislation was entirely inadequate for the protection of rights lawfully acquired in that country by American citizens, had interfered in Mexican internal affairs, and that Mexico will not tolerate such interference by a foreign government. On learning that the Mexican authorities had taken this view of its representations the Department gave the press the following statement outlining its attitude in the matter: [Here follows quotation contained in Department's telegram no. 171, November 20, 5 p.m., to the Chargé in Mexico, printed supra.] HUGHES 812.6363/1290 The First Secretary of the Mexican Embassy (Téllez) to the Chief of the Division of Mexican Affairs, Department of State (Hanna) [Translation *] WASHINGTON, November 22, 1922. MY DEAR MR. HANNA: In compliance with instructions just sent me by the Foreign Office, I have the pleasure of enclosing herewith to you a copy of the declarations made yesterday by that Office in connection with the statements given to the press by the Department of State Saturday last. In this connection, I take [etc.] MANUEL C. TÉLLEZ 53 This telegram was sent to the diplomatic representatives in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, and Uruguay. A similar instruction, dated Nov. 24, was mailed to the representatives in Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Panama, Paraguay, and Venezuela (file no. 812.6363/1290a). 84 File translation revised. 32604 vol. II—38—45 [Enclosure-Translation "] Statement by the Mexican Foreign Office With reference to the statement made by the Department of State of the United States and published in today's press, the Mexican Foreign Office makes the following statement: Although it is true that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico and Mr. Summerlin naturally have had to discuss orally at various times all matters connected with the decorous resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries, it is necessary to point out that the Mexican Foreign Office-which is the only legal channel which the Government has for its communication with the Foreign Offices of other states-neither furnished the petroleum bill of which it had no knowledge nor much less asked the Department of State at Washington for comments of any kind thereon. And if the Executive found it necessary to report to the Chamber of Deputies, it was because the memorandum of Mr. Summerlin appeared to imply limitations on the legislative power of Mexico, and to pass over the incident in silence would have been to neglect a duty of solidarity towards the other Federal power concerned and to encourage in addition the belief that importance was not attached to the creation of a precedent which was in writing and was inconsistent with the sovereignty of Mexico and might be resorted to against Mexico in the future by any foreign government. Fortunately, the Department of State at Washington has stated that it did not intend in this case to trespass upon the sovereignty of Mexico; that the United States has no desire to interfere with the internal affairs of Mexico; that it recognizes that Mexico is the only judge of its internal policy, and that its intentions continue to be friendly. Mexico gladly receives the foregoing statements, inasmuch as it is animated by the same sentiments of friendship, and it considers this incident to be closed. 812.6363/1225 The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) No. 2283 WASHINGTON, November 25, 1922. SIR: I am in receipt of your despatch No. 6420 of October 12, 1922, enclosing the text and translation of a draft of a Petroleum Bill and reporting in this connection that on the 10th of October, in a private conversation with you, Mr. Pani had stated that the Department's File translation revised. observations or comment on the draft might be helpful to the Mexican authorities. I have also noted your personal communication to the Chief of the Division of Mexican Affairs, dated October 19th," reporting that Mr. Pani informed you on the night of the 18th of October, that "they would welcome 'honest criticism' of the proposed Law." In reply I enclose a translation of a communication dated November 22, from Mr. Manuel C. Téllez, the Mexican representative at this capital, together with a translation of a statement which Mr. Pani gave to the press on the 21st instant in which he asserts that the Mexican Foreign Office "neither furnished the petroleum bill of which it had no knowledge nor much less asked the Department of State at Washington for comments of any kind thereon." 57 You are instructed to advise Mr. Pani, orally, that you have no desire to continue the discussion of this incident which you are pleased to note he considers as closed but that, for a clear understanding of the attitude of your Government in the matter as outlined in the official statement which the Department gave the press on November 18,58 a copy of which you furnished to the Mexican Foreign Office, it seems necessary for you to invite his attention to the fact that you advised the Department that your understanding of his conversation with you on October 10 and again on October 18 last was to the effect that he said that the Department's observations or comment on the draft might be helpful to the Mexican authorities and that they would welcome honest criticism of the proposed measure. I am [etc.] CHARLES E. HUGHES 812.6363/1309 The Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) to the Secretary of State No. 6707 MEXICO, December 6, 1922. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Department's mail instruction No. 2283 of November 25, 1922, in regard to my despatch No. 6420 of October 12, 1922, enclosing the text and translation of a draft of a Petroleum Bill, and reporting that on October 10th, in a private conversation with Mr. Pani, he had stated that the Department's observations and comment on the draft might be helpful to the Mexican authorities, and in regard to my personal letter to the Chief of the Division of Mexican Affairs, dated 50 See Mr. Hanna's note to the Secretary, Oct. 27, p. 702. 67 See supra. 5 See instruction no. 171, Nov. 20, to the Chargé in Mexico, p. 703. |